Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Panty Trust

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Merged to Panty fetishism Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 00:08, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Panty Trust

It was tagged speedy delete as nonsense, but this doesn't qualify as a speedy delete. -- (☺drini♫|☎) 13:45, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, NN, ever-so-slightly creepy advertising. --fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 13:52, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, advert. Nateji77 14:27, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. What an utterly wonderful little article about an aspect of sexual services that is seldom written about! Delightful, and brief, too. We should have items like this on our front, not those dull, lifeless FA's. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 14:54, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Hey Tony, would you be interested if a Panty Trust Football Association were organized? Barno 20:36, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
    • If you can find twenty-two men to turn out in duly verified panties and play by FA rules, go for it! Do you think they should swap panties at half time? Must the referee also be panty-trust verified? The linesmen? How much do you think I could get on E-Bay for the panties worn by Bobby Moore during the 1966 World Cup Final at Wembley? A trader is offering me a pair of silk bikinis but I think Bobby was most probably a full bottom cotton man. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 22:41, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with panty fetishists. Article is advertising for a fairly nn company on its own, but there's a natural place to merge it.Dlyons493 15:07, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment that's Panty fetishism. Tonywalton  | Talk 16:40, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment Thanks for pointing that out. I'll resist the temptation to create a panty fetishists article :-) Dlyons493 20:38, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
      • I was concerned when I saw the latter was blue-linked; fortunately it's just a redirect. This organization may be "relatively unique" per MGM below, but is it significant enough to justify merging any content and keeping a redirect? I doubt it but don't have enough knowledge and really don't care to research it. Barno 20:34, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with panty fetishism. Endorse Tony Sidaway's sentiments. -- RHaworth 17:57:21, 2005-09-10 (UTC)
• Keep as per Tony Sidaway. Owen× ☎ 19:11, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Creepy, but notable and informative. Mattley 19:51, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
• I prefer a merge and redirect to panty fetishism. The article is pretty low on context, but I expect this organization to be relatively unique so I prefer keep over delete, should a merge fail. - Mgm|^(talk) 21:25, September 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn company ad. Karmafist 21:46, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep or merge per Tony. Kappa 22:46, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
• Merge. — Phil Welch 23:33, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.